Critical Design Review Presentation

1. 2013-2014 Project Nova Critical Design Review Presentation

2. Final Launch Vehicle Dimensions

3. Final Launch Vehicle Dimensions Nosecone

4. Final Launch Vehicle Dimensions Recovery Section

5. Final Launch Vehicle Dimensions Booster Section

6. Final Launch Vehicle Dimensions

7. Final Launch Vehicle Design

8. Final Launch Vehicle Dimensions

9. Key Design Features • The Threat Analysis Payload system has aerodynamically shaped heat shields to protect the camera hardware from the forces the rocket will experience passing through transonic conditions into supersonic conditions.

10. Key Design Features • PASTE A PICTURE OF THE HEAT SHIELDS HERE

11. Key Design Features • A ballast tank has been incorporated into the overall design of the rocket to combat two things: • Differentiating stability calibers thru design and manufacturing phases due to imprecise mass measurements done during design • To increase the weight of the vehicle without having large affects on the stability caliber should our final vehicle weight fall below the optimum calculated weight

12. Key Design Features CG Position

13. Final Motor Choice • Motor selection was accomplished using the criteria needed for mission success, specifically the motor had to meet the following requirements: • The motor had to have enough total impulse to accelerate the rocket up to supersonic speeds without going to far outside of the transonic region, ideally around Mach 1.0 – 1.2. • The motor could not deliver the rocket past the designated altitude limit of 20,000 feet, as set by the USLI competition rules. • The motor had to deliver the payload to teams target altitude of 15,500 feet given any mass increases on the order of ~20%.

14. Final Motor Choice Sellers: What’s Up Hobbies (Stockton, CA) Wildman Rocketry (Van Orin, IL)

15. Final Motor Choice Optimum Weight: 68.5 lbm Mass margin: 22% Apogee Achieved (ft): 15,508 Maximum Mach #: 1.02

16. Final Motor Choice • It should be noted that the optimum weight as calculated and simulated in various rocketry programs is not 100% accurate. Given the high velocity of the rocket, these programs do not simulate transonic and supersonic flight well. Therefore, the optimum weight will be significantly less than 68.5 lbm. Testing will be done using the full-scale rocket to gather data that will be used to precisely identify the correct optimum weight.

17. Final Motor Choice • If the launch site is changed resulting in a ceiling limit of 10,000 feet, the alternate motor will be a Cesaroni M1830. • Estimated altitude: 9174 feet • Estimated Mach achievable: 0.80 • The CMP will be unachievable, however, due to lack of distance and minimized burntime of motor.

18. Rocket Flight Stability CG Location CP Location Stability caliber: 2.93

19. Rocket Flight Stability

20. Rocket Flight Stability

21. Simulated Flight Performance Data

22. Simulated Flight Performance Data

23. Simulated Flight Performance Data • It should also be noted that with the given configuration of the recovery system, the rocket still generates less than 75 lbf-ft of kinetic energy upon ground landing. This is ascertained by making the assumption that the rocket has fully separated into its three separate sections and that each section weighs less than 27.7 lbm, which if each section increases in weight by 22%, they will be below that mark.

24. Mass Statement and Mass Margin • Mass estimations were performed using OpenRocket, which allows: • All components to be assigned material specifications with designated densities for each material. • By inputting the lengths and thicknesses for each component, the software calculates the total mass accurately. • Mass calculations for electronic systems and payloads are estimations currently, and will change as systems are defined, received, and tested throughout the manufacturing process of the rocket.

25. Mass Statement and Mass Margin

26. Mass Statement and Mass Margin • If the final weight of the rocket exceeds the current calculated estimation, the rocket will have a simulated mass margin of 22% before it will no longer be able to achieve mission requirements. • Given the inaccuracies of simulations at supersonic speeds, the mass margin will be much lower, approximately around ~15%.

27. Predicted Drift from Launch Pad

28. Subscale Test Flight • The subscale rocket had a structure that was an 80% scale of the full-scale vehicle. • This scale was chosen to simulate the stability conditions predicted through computer simulations to insure the overall structure of the rocket would be suitable for full-scale flight and would be able maintain the predicted stability.

29. Subscale Test Flight Subscale Fin Dimensions

30. Subscale Test Flight

31. Subscale Test Flight Drogue Parachute Main Parachute Motor Avionics Bay

32. Subscale Test Flight

33. Subscale Test Flight

34. Recovery • Dual-Deploy System: Drogue and Main • Redundant Charges • Dual Altimeters

35. Recovery

36. Recovery • Black Powder Charges • 1st Charge: 5 grams → 164 lbf • Backup Charge: 5.5 grams → 180 lbf • Ground Testing

37. Recovery • Shear Pins • #4-40 nylon machine screws • 10,000 psi shear strength • 2 pins connecting each section • Instron Tensile Stress Testing

38. Recovery • Drogue Specifications • Parachute Diameter: 17.3 in • Parachute Material: Ripstop Nylon • Shock Cord Length: 300 in • Shock Cord Specification: 1 in diameter tubular nylon

39. Recovery • Main Specifications • Parachute Diameter: 138 in • Parachute Material: Ripstop Nylon • Shock Cord Length: 300 in • Shock Cord Specification: 1.5 in diameter tubular nylon • Testing

40. Payload • Design Overview • TAP • Hardware Integration • Software Integration • Base Station

41. Payload • Design Overview • BPAP • Hardware Data Collection • Software Processing • Data Collection Post Flight • Analysis

42. Payload • Design Overview • CMP • Testing Verification • Integration

43. Requirement Fufillment • Where we stand • CDR • Future Endevours

44. Closing • Summary • Questions